Perry Doubles Down On Support For Illegal Alien Kids

Unless something big happens, I do believe the GOP will start looking more towards Mitt Romney over Rick Perry, especially when we get things like this

Rick Perry went out on a limb Thursday by refusing to back off his support as Texas governor for granting in-state tuition to some of the children of illegal immigrants, and painting critics of the law as heartless — remarks that landed him in the crosshairs of his GOP rivals.

The three-term Texas governor said he still supports the program “greatly” and that the Lone Star State needs “to be educating these children because otherwise they’ll “become a drag on society.”

“If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Mr. Perry said.

I guess I’m heartless. Of course, this isn’t about heart: it’s about The Law. The intention of the Founders, the fuddy duddy old powder wig wearing men of yesteryear, was to create a nation of Law, not a nation of Men. And as soon as we start thinking strictly with our heart strings, reason and law go out the window.

Sure, the kids of illegals aren’t at fault for being brought to the United States by their law breaking parents. That doesn’t mean we are responsible for educating them, and especially not giving them in-state tuition. In most states, including Texas, it is damned hard to get in-state tuition of you came from another state. A college kid would need to change their residence and pay for the college all on their own without help from someone outside the state in order to be even considered for in-state tuition (which is subsidized by the taxpayer).

The stance also put Mr. Perry at odds with a chunk of the audience, which booed, and opened him up to attacks from the Republican field, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who said the law carries an annual price tag of $22,000 per student and acts as a magnet for illegal immigrants.

“If you’re a United States citizen from any one of the other 49 states, you have to pay $100,000 more,” Mr. Romney said, alluding to the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition at the University of Texas over four years. “That doesn’t make sense to me. That kind of magnet draws people into this country to get that education, to get the $100,000 break. It makes no sense.”

And that kind of stance concerns me in that Perry could be in favor of passing some sort of DREAM Act legislation, giving the children of illegals a quick pathway to citizenship while subsidizing their lives. And a DREAM Act would also mean that we’d use our hearts to say “well, the kid is trying to be a citizen: it’d be mean to deport their families.” It’s a dangerous road which uses emotion over law, and changes/creates law with emotion.

Michelle Malkin says this wasn’t even Perry’s worst moment in the debate.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Perry Doubles Down On Support For Illegal Alien Kids”

  1. Word says:

    Perry had a bad night IMO. Hes got a lifetime of political reality to defend and a book with some kookish things in it to defend.

    While I agree with the SSI being a ponzi scheme its still a HUGELY bad mistake to go after SSI in any way. Get 65 million old people skittish about your take on SSI and your going down.

    As I said a week or so the GOP is making a huge mistake in going after Social Security in anyway other then raising the payroll tax by 3/4 of one percent for employee and employer and both SSI and perscription drug benefit is golden for 75 years.

    But NO…the GOP’s got to go into private accounts……..or the CHILEAN MODEL…….lolololololol……STUPID.

    Its gonna hand the election to Obama if the GOP continue on this parade of bashing SSI. They have lost their FOOKING MINDS!!!

  2. david7134 says:

    First on Perry, the way he sets his face and his hand action when he is attacked are creepy. I thought he looked mentally deranged.

    Now on tuition, I have a kid who just started college and do not understand giving in-state tuition to illegals. What about us in Louisiana? We have done everything according to the law, but now have to pay more than those who are not supposed to be here? Is that heart? Another thought, try applying to a Texas college. They almost all indicate that they only take the upper 10 or 20% of the high school class, and that is for in-state kids. So if you had a bad year or a teacher that decided to make life hell on you, then you will be knocked out by someone that isn’t supposed to be here. Is that heart?

    What is wrong with people and their kids going to the country of their origin? The politicians make it sound like death. Will someone who lives in Mexico really have less opportunity than a law someone here? Or for that matter, how is it fair that someone who is here illegally has the ability to take away the opportunity that my kid might want? I guess that is heart too?

    I say go for Paul. He does have a free border policy, but at least it makes more sense than what these liberals like Perry desire. Paul looks at the situation as increasing the labor pool and driving down the cost of labor. Also, he is not wild about giving free money to illegals.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Ron Paul in a nutshell: (Or a nut in a Ron Paul shell)

    • Paul is a registered Republican but expresses considerable disdain for the GOP. He says there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. In 1987 the Congressman said “I want to completely disassociate myself from Ronald Reagan,” and described his administration as a “dramatic failure.”
    He accused George H.W. Bush of war crimes, and wanted to impeach George W. Bush because of the non-existent North American Union. He says Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is part of the “international conspiracy” and endorsed his primary opponent.
    Paul refused to endorse Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008, and was the only Republican to express approval when Democrats captured control of the House and Senate in 2006. If Paul is not nominated, he refuses to pledge support the 2012 GOP presidential candidate.[3]
    • The Congressman says he supports a strong national defense and emphasizes his military service. He was an Air Force gynecologist who never left the United States. Today he wants to cut $1 trillion out of the Pentagon budget. He would abandon NATO and abolish the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.
    He would give up America’s veto power in the UN Security Council as well as all military assistance to Israel. He would also ignore the major lesson from WW I and WW II, collective security. He would abandon our allies who paid 100% of the costs of Operation Desert Storm and have suffered 35% of all combat casualties in Afghanistan.[4]
    • The Texan says he is an advocate of free trade, but opposes practically every free trade agreement. As the Club for Growth notes, Paul “lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that ‘tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,’ but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul’s rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress’s worst protectionists.”[5]
    • He claims to be a right to life champion, but his plan allows abortion on the state level. He is against taxpayer funded abortions but not self paid abortions in the states’ rights category.[6]
    • He claims to be against illegal immigration. He did vote for the 2006 Secure Fence Act and claims to support the Border Fence, but he also voted against it on numerous occasions and has repeatedly said it is not needed. He says sensors at the border are enough. He also says the military is not needed on the border, and the Border Patrol is sufficient.
    The Border Patrol is not mentioned in the Constitution and he use to claim they were unconstitutional. On one hand Paul is arguing for complete sovereignty and isolationism, but on the other hand he is opposing the border fence.[7]
    • He also claims to be against amnesty but his book, Liberty Defined, advocates it. He claims to be against birthright citizenship but his book supports it. He also opposes the E-Verify system to check employment.[8]
    • He says we should not tell other countries what to do, but is always the first to criticize Israel.[9]
    • He describes himself as a fiscal conservative but he has voted for numerous pork barrel projects and was against the Constitutional Amendment for a line item veto. He says it is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to the president. Paul is one of only four Republicans who supports earmarks, and opposes the GOP Ryan plan to cut the deficit by $6.2 trillion over a decade.[10]
    • Ron Paul says he is for health care reform, but he opposes the GOP plan. Republicans believe excessive litigation increases health care costs and they advocate tort reform. Ron Paul is against it because it “damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules.”
    According to the Philadelphia Inquirer: “Ten years ago, 19 hospitals in Philadelphia were in the business of delivering babies. Next month, only eight will remain.” This is because of “high expenses for malpractice insurance.” The result is that hospitals lose about “$2000 per delivery” and are being forced to close their OB units.[11]
    • He says the growth of entitlements are a major problem and admits they are insolvent, but opposed George Bush’s social security reforms. Paul wants to end social security, medicare and medicaid, but would not accept the Bush plan as a interim step to reduce costs.[12]
    • He has criticized welfare for decades but was one of of just four GOP Congressmen who voted against extending welfare reform in 2002. Most Americans are not fond of welfare but the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996″ was a GOP proposal signed by a reluctant Bill Clinton.
    When Clinton added his signature the sign on his desk said “Welfare to Work,” and the promise came true. The act resulted in a large reduction in the number of people collecting welfare and that is why Republicans have supported its continuation.[13]
    • Paul says he is against gun control but advocates policies which would allow states to disarm their residents.[14]
    • He says he is against gay marriage, but voted against the amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The amendment would have outlawed gay marriage but not civil unions. At the 2007 Values Voter Debate Paul said, “True Christians believe marriage is a church function, not a state function. I don’t think you need a license to get married.” By that definition any liberal church would be free to perform gay marriages that would be recognized by the state. [15]
    • As a medical doctor he took the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm and to “prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.” Nevertheless, Paul is at the forefront of the anti-vaccine movement which has had a serious impact.
    Now the U.S. is struggling with a large number of cases of measles and other disease which were once thought to have been eradicated. According to the Centers for Disease Control, America is experiencing the largest outbreak in 15 years.[16]
    • His admirers claim he is the only truthful lawmaker on Capitol Hill, but he tells outrageous lies. Paul falsely claims 1) Israel created Hamas, 2) Palestinians are starving and confined to a “concentration camp,” 3) the United States financed Osama bin Laden during the first Afghan War, 4) the CIA is behind the sale of illegal drugs, and 5) there is an “international conspiracy” focused on the non-existent North American Union.[17]
    • Rep. Paul has won the presidential straw vote at the last two Conservative Political Action Conferences, but his 2011 rating from the liberal ACLU is 80%. They oppose all aspects of the War on Terror. Paul voted against the constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. He is against the death penalty, allowing silent school prayer, and school vouchers.[18]
    • Paul claims to be a champion of individual liberty but is the only lawmaker to oppose the 1964 Civil Right Act, and voted against the legislation on its 40th anniversary. This is the law which allows blacks to eat at the lunch counter and says they cannot be turned away from hotels.[19]

  4. david7134 says:

    I appreciate your summation of Paul. I did not know some of the information in your extensive report. However, now that I know it, I really like the guy even more. I might note that much of your knowledge is wrong. For instance, it is a known fact that the CIA founded Air America which was a huge distributor of illegal drugs at the time. So it would be wise to get your knowledge together. As to opposition to various bills, what does that have to do with how he thinks and his desire for freedom. Simply because a bill has a specfic title or the first paragraph indicates the objective of the bill, reading of the bill will indicate something entirely different. For instance, Clinton’s elimination of welfare checks was supplanted by the IRS continuing the process through tax returns. The welfare state is alive and well. As I have said before and will continue to support, the Civil Rights acts were nothing but socialistic legislation intended to relieve you of your rights, supposedly for a just cause. So as I have indicated in the past, you are wrong.

  5. gitarcarver says:


    I am glad to hear that you believe that people should not have the right to vote, or should be treated differently based on the color of their skin.

    Paul is basically unprincipled. He will say what it takes to get elected and then do the opposite. The fact that you like an unprincipled man is telling.

    Oh, and by the way, the list I provided says nothing about Air America, so that is a canard on your part.

    I am not surprised.

  6. Word says:

    I have said I will vote for anyone but Obama. But if Ron Paul were to be nominated then the election would be a 50 state win by the Commie in the White House because Ron Paul is a FUKING LUNATIC.

  7. captainfish says:

    On the topic of in-state tuition for illegals…. if we are indeed a nation of laws, this should have never happened. One, we are using tax dollars to subsidize people that are here illegally. These people have no american birth certificate. They have no social security number and they have no right to work in the US.

    Thus, it is unconstitutional, and at the least, illegal to give tax dollars to non-citizens in preference over American citizens.

    Two, its is unequal treatment.

    Three, I don’t care if these people were brought here as very minor children and didn’t have a choice due to their parent’s actions…. THEY ARE ADULTS NOW!!!! They should be deported.

    Many universities receive federal funding, state funding, and private scholarships. These colleges that allow for in-state tuition for illegals should be banned from receiving any more taxpayer dollars until it is overturned.

Pirate's Cove